"Obama won the great tax-cut showdown of 2010 - and House Democrats don't have a clue that he did."

[Clio the Leo]

Swindle of the year

Barack Obama won the great tax-cut showdown of 2010 - and House Democrats don't have a clue that he did. In the deal struck this week, the president negotiated the biggest stimulus in American history, larger than his $814 billion 2009 stimulus package. It will pump a trillion borrowed Chinese dollars into the U.S. economy over the next two years - which just happen to be the two years of the run-up to the next presidential election. This is a defeat?

If Obama had asked for a second stimulus directly, he would have been laughed out of town. Stimulus I was so reviled that the Democrats banished the word from their lexicon throughout the 2010 campaign. And yet, despite a very weak post-election hand, Obama got the Republicans to offer to increase spending and cut taxes by $990 billion over two years. Two-thirds of that is above and beyond extension of the Bush tax cuts but includes such urgent national necessities as windmill subsidies.

No mean achievement. After all, these are the same Republicans who spent 2010 running on limited government and reducing debt. And this budget busting occurs less than a week after the president's deficit commission had supposedly signaled a new national consensus of austerity and frugality.

<snip>

At great cost that will have to be paid after this newest free lunch, the package will add as much as 1 percent to GDP and lower the unemployment rate by about 1.5 percentage points. That could easily be the difference between victory and defeat in 2012.

Obama is no fool. While getting Republicans to boost his own reelection chances, he gets them to make a mockery of their newfound, second-chance, post-Bush, Tea-Party, this-time-we're-serious persona of debt-averse fiscal responsibility.

And he gets all this in return for what? For a mere two-year postponement of a mere 4.6-point increase in marginal tax rates for upper incomes. And an estate tax rate of 35 percent - it jumps insanely from zero to 55 percent on Jan. 1 - that is somewhat lower than what the Democrats wanted.

<snip>

No, says the current buzz, the left will instead challenge Obama for the Democratic nomination. Really now? For decades, African Americans have been this party's most loyal constituency. They vote 9 to 1 Democratic through hell and high water, through impeachment and recession, through everything. After four centuries of enduring much, African Americans finally see one of their own achieve the presidency. And their own party is going to deny him a shot at his own reelection?

Not even Democrats are that stupid. The remaining question is whether they are just stupid enough to not understand - and therefore vote down - the swindle of the year just pulled off by their own president.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/09/AR2010120904472_pf.html

[ananda]

1. This is called rightwing spin.

nt

[bushisanidiot]

20. So you think the republican majority is going to get the 60 votes

needed to pass a bill next year that will raise taxes for the rich?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[niceypoo]

38. They dont need votes

They have Obama

[polichick]

27. Yes, well-done rightwing spin. nt

[Aramchek]

34. you really would give up everything just to stick it to the Rich. that's called delusion.

[Deep13]

2. Would the bottom 98% tax cuts be permanent? nt

[MannyGoldstein]

3. This stimulus package is targeted at the rich

Even more than the last stimulus package was.

The rich are a black hole for stimulus money.

Stop the madness. 18 years of 'compromise' and here we are.

[Pab Sungenis]

4. What stimulus?

The only really stimulative stuff in the whole package is a little more than a year of unemployment benefits. The rest is non-stimulative tax cuts.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. I Respectfully Disagree

The economy is suffering from a lack of aggregate demand. Anything to increase aggregate demand is a good thing. Even economists opposed to tax cuts for the rich would say they have some stimulative effect because they increase aggregate demand by putting money in folks hands. The reason most economists oppose them is because the richer you are the less money you have to spend. But that was the price to pay for the other goodies which include the EITC, tax cuts for everybody, and UI extension which are all stimulative because they put money in people's hands...

From the article:


"At great cost that will have to be paid after this newest free lunch, the package will add as much as 1 percent to GDP and lower the unemployment rate by about 1.5 percentage points. That could easily be the difference between victory and defeat in 2012."

I really think President Obama needs to bring unemployment down below eight percent to be reelected but if he can get it down to around 8.2% or so he has a real chance...

[Pab Sungenis]

21. But the rich aren't spending their giveaways.

They're squirreling it all away, a lot of it offshore. They're not using it to create jobs.

You want stimulus? Extend unemployment, cut the lowest tax rate to 2%, let the Bush cut on the upper bracket expire, and create a new 50% bracket for income over $1 Million a year. Then have a REAL stimulus plan with FEDERAL projects, not administered by the States.

For example, build a high-speed rail network as a series of Post Roads for moving the mail, and for strategic movement of troops under Defense funding. Imagine the number of jobs that would create over the next ten years, and how the new workers spending their wages would fuel the economy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Those Are Awesome Ideas.

How do we get the Republicans to agree to them?

They will control the House soon.

[Pab Sungenis]

33. We don't.

We had our choice and we blew it. So let's not pretend that capitulating to the Republicans is getting what we want.

We may get another chance in 2020 after Obama loses and the Republicans control everything for another 8 years, but we'll probably put in another ineffective, wishy-washy, incompetent weakling who will continue to give the Republicans everything they want.

[tritsofme]

37. Of course things like a payroll tax cut are stimulative.

Perhaps not as stimulative as other fiscal measures, but what you say is plainly incorrect.

[indimuse]

5. IF this is so...

why the hell are all the repukes creamin their selves...? just sayin..:eyes:

[Mass]

6. Krauthammer? You' ve got to be joking. What next? Glenn Beck?

[GoCubsGo]

8. Thank you for pointing out who wrote that article.

I'm glad I saw it before I clicked on the link to read the editorial. Krauthammer is the worst of the worst in my book.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. I Wouldn't Have Quoted A Conservative To Support The Compromise

There are plenty of liberals who think it's at least a decent compromise.

But I see a tactic here, and I'm not accusing you of using it, to chill debate and it's a low down tactic at that...

It goes something like this... "FOX News agrees with your position. Let's see you defend it now."

What would be the result if there was a discussion of Israel and the person opposing an Israeli action was told "David Duke and Stormfront agree with your position. Let's see you defend it now."

It's a big world with lots of opinions...

[QC]

23. Andrew Sullivan has been treated like the Voice of God here in GD: P for years now,

so why not Krauthammer?

[polichick]

29. Next DU will praise Psycho Sarah for saying, "Obama finally gets something right!"

:sarcasm:

[CakeGrrl]

30. Meanwhile, negative stuff about Obama courtesy of Politico et al hits DU lickety-split

Wanna block articles from there, too, or would that remove too many anti-Obama talking points to be any fun?

[Mass]

31. I am an equal opportunity person. I have protested a lot against Politico articles because

of the bias, but how does that make Krauthammer supporting the tax cut an argument for progressives to support it? Sorry, I dont buy it anymore than I buy posting RW articles attacking Obama about the cost of the India trip.

[donco6]

35. Jesus - and they blast the posting of Firedoglake.

Now we're going to get KRAUTHAMMER? SEriously?

[MadHound]

7. It amazes me how Obama supporters are now starting to sound like Republicans

Seriously, you're essentially making RW arguments, for a RW piece of legislation. Do you have no shame, no conscience?

[QC]

24. Some are even going on about the "Silent Majority" now.

Nixon lives!

[bowens43]

the spin is making me dizzzzzyyyyyyyyyyy ......nt

[earthside]

10. You're not supporting this argument?

Are you?

I mean ... Charles Krauthammer?

[Clio the Leo]

18. ... thought I'd get the pot a stir.

;)

[CanonRay]

11. Wow, is this bullshit or what

The spin is making me dizzy.

[harun]

12. That's not snow they're shoveling...

[OHdem10]

13. All commentators know the Republicans won, there is no need

to spin. We can say Obama did well in that he got
more than was ever expected. The Republicans got what
they wanted.

[rucky]

14. So they let the WaPo into the back room, but not Pelosi?

Somehow I doubt this.

[sadbear]

15. At what cost?

I think we're all fairly certain Social Security will be sacrificed for this. What else? Medicare? Medicaid?

[Nite Owl]

16. Pump Chinese dollars?

Are you serious? Whose economy are we pumping?
The author of this article is rightwinger are we even supposed to post this stuff on DU?
Almost a trillion $'s in new debt, just what we need right before the hammer comes down on SS and programs we need. That's why the GOP just loves this deal.

[bvar22]

19. If this is a WIN,

then the Carolina Panthers (1-11) are going to the Super Bowl!
:party:

[whosinpower]

25. It is hogwash - Cleo

I have long been a fan and supporter of your posts. I have long been a fan and supporter of Obama. I cried when he was elected, because I was so happy for America.

But this is hogwash. No, even worse, this is the sludge left on the bottom of the tub hogwash.

If America needs another stimulus - THEN FUCKING TELL AMERICA THAT IT NEEDS ANOTHER STIMULUS AND PASS THAT AS IT IS. Be honest. Be truthful. Be upfront. Be transparent.

Giving millionaires and billionaires tax breaks that they do not need and will not spend or invest is not stimulus. Demanding that they must take half of that said stimulus so the unemployed can keep food on the table is not stimulus. It will not contribute to the GDP. It will not create jobs. It effectively doubles the cost of that stimulus and when we add on the cost of borrowing - it is absolutely abhorrent.

But, perhaps Obama is just more brilliant than we give him credit for. He must know that taking off the public option in healthcare cost the democrats seats. That was the one thing that was most popular in polling - and he would not even discuss it, so entrenched with the big pharma and insurance lobby. It cost him. It cost the democrats, because they did not fight. So, it occurs to me that he throws out this gambit to enrage his base. Why would he do that? 2011 is going to be fractious and he needs his base in a fighting mood. Well - he gave them that didn't he. It clarifies things that are trully important. When fundamental democratic values are threatened, it is critical that members in the house and senate FIGHT BACK. This is the test for the democrats. They MUST stand firm or else all is lost. And they must not take the presidency for granted - they have to do the hard work. Perhaps he is that brilliant....but it is a desperate gambit.....

[snot]

26. It's not stimulus so much as it's vacuuming more $$ by the rich from the rest of us:

See the excellent piece by Stephen Herrington at HuffPo:

"What damages economies is when money is lost from the economy. In the case of the Great Depression and now our Great Recession, the rich were, and now are, at a peak in terms of how much of the nation's per capita income went to them. Now as in 1929, the rich took money out of the economy and "invested" it in non-productive speculation apart from the real economy. Some $18 trillion in corporate cash are sitting on the sidelines waiting in vain for some market magic to offer some reason to re-enter the real economy. The notion that wealth is invested in economies and finances new homes and factories hasn't been true for over a century, not since Dow and Jones set up shop on Wall Street. The bulk of wealth now circulates in and out of stocks, bonds, currencies, commodities and hedge funds and will never see the real economies of the world again unless it is taxed back into it and spent by governments.

"Higher taxes on the poor and middle classes don't damage economies except when they are levied in order to spare the rich from an increasing tax burden commensurate with their increasing share of wealth. In 1932 Hoover raised taxes on everyone but levied extra taxes on the working class. He did so in an effort to balance the budget and thus took money out of the economy in order to limit the liabilities of the rich who had appropriated too much for a healthy economy to sustain already. In 1937 FDR did the same thing and worse; he stopped government stimulus spending, removing even more money from the economy, all in order to relieve the rich from returning enough money to the economy, from their takings, to keep it working.

"WWII solved the problem of government not understanding what a great world power economy is based on. Wages doubled during WWII and the economy boomed for a generation. Nobody expected that kind of result but Keynes. A world power economy is based on money in circulation and that is dependent on money in either of the hands of the wage earning public or the hands of government, both of whom spend what they take in. Eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the middle class will not harm the economy if it is not commensurate with tax relief for the rich. The only way to improve our economy is to tax the historic levels of wealth and return that wealth to the economy."

More at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-herrington/let-the-bush-tax-cuts-exp_1_b_794233.html

[Phx_Dem]

28. It's true. The GOP are the ones who got swindled. And they showed

that the ONLY thing they care about are the rich. They accepted everything we wanted as long as they could get their, comparatively puny, tax cuts for the rich. They're idiots, and we win.

[Phx_Dem]

32. The money lines . . .

"Obama is no fool. While getting Republicans to boost his own reelection chances, he gets them to make a mockery of their newfound, second-chance, post-Bush, Tea-Party, this-time-we're-serious persona of debt-averse fiscal responsibility.

And he gets all this in return for what? For a mere two-year postponement of a mere 4.6-point increase in marginal tax rates for upper incomes. And an estate tax rate of 35 percent - it jumps insanely from zero to 55 percent on Jan. 1 - that is somewhat lower than what the Democrats wanted.

No, cries the left: Obama violated a sacred principle. A 39.6 percent tax rate versus 35 percent is a principle?"


Krauthammer must be beside himself to have to write this! Love it!!

[truthspeak]

36. I'm worried the GOP are gonna figure this out...

and cancel the deal...then again, its not in their best interest to because I think most americans are in favor of this deal.

Obama win-win.

[Hawkowl]

39. It's called a Pyrrhic victory

You burn the village down to save it. Is that really a victory?

[budkin]

40. Utter bullshit

[Warren Stupidity]

41. The Trebuchet of Capitulationism!

[DirkGently]

42. "Boosted his own reelection chances?" With Republicans laughing and Dems fuming? Not a political win